Obama invokes executive privilege on F&F documents

[boutons_deux]

During a phone call last week with a senior Justice official, Issa's chief investigative counsel, Stephen Castor, broached a possible settlement. As the conversation began, according to two sources familiar with the conversation, Castor asked the official where things stood on "accountability." By that, Castor meant would any heads roll at Justice. Castor mentioned Lanny Breuer, the head of the department's Criminal Division, whom Republicans had been gunning for because of his knowledge of gun-walking techniques that had been used during the Bush administration. (Their theory was that Breuer should have taken aggressive steps to ensure that such measures were not repeated in future operations.) According to these sources, Castor said that if Breuer resigned, they could head off the looming constitutional clash.

But the Justice official, Steven Reich, an associate deputy attorney general involved in the Fast and Furious negotiations with Congress, rejected the offer, calling it a "non-starter."

Still, Castor’s gambit was seen by DOJ officials as evidence that Issa was more interested in drawing blood than getting to the truth.

"The reason that this contempt motion happened is that Issa didn't come up with any evidence and didn't get a scalp," says Matthew Miller, a close associate of Holder's and his former communications director. "When you set expectations that high and you don't deliver, you have to explain why."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/22/issa-committee-called-for-justice-department-scalp.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=exclusive_breaking_news&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bexclusive_breaking_news&utm_term=Breaking%20News%20and%20Exclusives

[boutons_deux]

IRONY ALERT: Karl Rove Complains To Fox News About Obama's Assertion Of Executive Privilege

KARL ROVE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: It's one thing to exert executive privilege over the actions of the President, and his aides, and the White House. It's another thing to exercise executive privilege with regard to aCabinet official, seemingly in a matter that according to the President up until now, had no connections with, no contact with, no communications with the White House. So I'm a little bit concerned about it. I think it's an overreach.

[...]

ROVE: This is a very long reach. I mean basically if the President is allowed to take the privilege that goes to the Executive Office of the President and extend it to a Cabinet department, then he can extend it to any branch of the government for any matter, even if there was no presidential or White House involvement. And I'm not certain that that's what the Founders thought about when they talked about executive privilege.


President Bush invoked executive privilege today for the first time in his administration to block a Congressional committee trying to review documents about a decades-long scandal involving F.B.I. misuse of mob informants in Boston. His order also denied the committee access to internal Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton's fund-raising tactics.


As noted by law professor Peter Shane, an expert on the separation of powers, executive privilege routinely encompasses "documents generated anywhere in the executive branch":

Executive privilege is really an umbrella concept that encompasses a variety of privileges. History's most famous claim of executive privilege -- President Richard Nixon's unsuccessful attempt to withhold the "Watergate tapes" -- was an example of "presidential privacy" privilege. That privilege covers executive communications when the president is involved.

The executive branch, however, historically claims a much broader privilege, the so-called "deliberative privilege."

Deliberative privilege aims to protect documents generated anywhere in the executive branch that embody only the executive's internal deliberations, not final policy decisions. The current dispute involves "deliberative privilege."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206210007

[Wild Cobra]

IRONY ALERT: Karl Rove Complains To Fox News About Obama's Assertion Of Executive Privilege

KARL ROVE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: It's one thing to exert executive privilege over the actions of the President, and his aides, and the White House. It's another thing to exercise executive privilege with regard to aCabinet official, seemingly in a matter that according to the President up until now, had no connections with, no contact with, no communications with the White House. So I'm a little bit concerned about it. I think it's an overreach.

[...]

ROVE: This is a very long reach. I mean basically if the President is allowed to take the privilege that goes to the Executive Office of the President and extend it to a Cabinet department, then he can extend it to any branch of the government for any matter, even if there was no presidential or White House involvement. And I'm not certain that that's what the Founders thought about when they talked about executive privilege.


President Bush invoked executive privilege today for the first time in his administration to block a Congressional committee trying to review documents about a decades-long scandal involving F.B.I. misuse of mob informants in Boston. His order also denied the committee access to internal Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton's fund-raising tactics.


As noted by law professor Peter Shane, an expert on the separation of powers, executive privilege routinely encompasses "documents generated anywhere in the executive branch":

Executive privilege is really an umbrella concept that encompasses a variety of privileges. History's most famous claim of executive privilege -- President Richard Nixon's unsuccessful attempt to withhold the "Watergate tapes" -- was an example of "presidential privacy" privilege. That privilege covers executive communications when the president is involved.

The executive branch, however, historically claims a much broader privilege, the so-called "deliberative privilege."

Deliberative privilege aims to protect documents generated anywhere in the executive branch that embody only the executive's internal deliberations, not final policy decisions. The current dispute involves "deliberative privilege."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206210007
Did you listen to the part starting at 2:08?

[Yonivore]

Once again, Bill Whittle...

UFIpoL3jrfo

[Th'Pusher]

Lol @ yoni clinging to his guns and his religion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

*stuff*

The Washington Times

The Washington Times is an obviously right wing newspaper. If you are just trying to have a circle jerk with other GOP partisan types then by all means post them, the National Review or other similar papers.

OTOH, if you want to make a compelling case to the other partisans or to independents then perhaps you could try to find a objective source or even better a liberal source that makes these claims. Citing WT is just going to be ignored as partisan by most whereas something like the CSM or the Washington Post will not be ignored.

If you cannot find anything other than a partisan publication making such claims, it speaks for itself.

It the difference between citing the National Academy of Sciences and Watts Up With That.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Obama's executive order makes it more likely, in my view, that Obama approved the operation.

You saying that its 'in your view' makes it more likely that its going to be based off of confirmation bias and lack actual intelligent thought.

Look up non-sequitor.

[spursncowboys]

The Washington Times is an obviously right wing newspaper. If you are just trying to have a circle jerk with other GOP partisan types then by all means post them, the National Review or other similar papers.

OTOH, if you want to make a compelling case to the other partisans or to independents then perhaps you could try to find a objective source or even better a liberal source that makes these claims. Citing WT is just going to be ignored as partisan by most whereas something like the CSM or the Washington Post will not be ignored.

If you cannot find anything other than a partisan publication making such claims, it speaks for itself.

It the difference between citing the National Academy of Sciences and Watts Up With That.
So instead of the actual statements, you are trying to discredit the source? gotcha.

You probably said that about monica lewinsky too huh, since it broke from drudge.
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSf_v2b7gCFeKMnrF62vUqNt-4Vy5UOyMTAFHoKLWzBQlZn-yQSHA

[clambake]

spursncowboys afraid of oval office blowjobs.

i can see that. lol

[boutons_deux]

NRA/Repugs: (white peoples') Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

(except when Dems are involved, Dems' guns kill people)

[boutons_deux]

GOP Oversight Chair Admits There Is No Evidence Of White House Involvement In Fast And Furious

WALLACE: Do you have any evidence that White House officials were involved in these decisions, that they knowingly misled Congress, and are involved in a cover-up?

ISSA: No, we don’t. And what we are seeking are documents that we know to exist, February 4 to December [2011] that are in fact about [murdered Border Patrol agent] Brian Terry’s murder, who knew, and why people were lying about it…

WALLACE: I want to be clear, because we’ve got to get out, no evidence that the White House is involved in the cover up?

ISSA: And I hope they don’t get involved.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200175&page=7

Issa izza still fishing FURIOUSLY

[DMX7]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/22293813.jpg

lol, he's used executive privilege one time.

[Wild Cobra]

GOP Oversight Chair Admits There Is No Evidence Of White House Involvement In Fast And Furious

Obama is the proof, else executive privilege does not apply.

[ChumpDumper]

Obama is the proof, else executive privilege does not apply.Utterly false statement.

[Wild Cobra]

Doesn't executive privilege only apply to something with an executive office connection?

Who is he protecting in the White House?

[mavs>spurs]

holder needs to be held accountable for his crimes, release the documents already

IF it's proven he was arming the cartels as a false flag operation to help obama with his plan for an assault weapons ban, then the death penalty should suffice.

[ElNono]

Doesn't executive privilege only apply to something with an executive office connection?

No and the Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch. While I don't particularly like the fact that the privilege was invoked, there's no doubt about the Executive branch connection.

[boutons_deux]

not only org connection, but any communications with ANYBODY and the Exec are subject to Exec privilege.

and remember dickhead went back decades and reclassified millions of Pres papers that had been in the public domain. gotdam, Repugs are assholes.

[Wild Cobra]

No and the Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch. While I don't particularly like the fact that the privilege was invoked, there's no doubt about the Executive branch connection.
Yes, you are correct. Still, there is no question of right and wrong here. This was flat out illegal. For Obama to invoke executive privilege rather than get to the truth, I would think, should be an impeachable action.

[Wild Cobra]

not only org connection, but any communications with ANYBODY and the Exec are subject to Exec privilege.

and remember dickhead went back decades and reclassified millions of Pres papers that had been in the public domain. gotdam, Repugs are assholes.
I have to wonder. What percentage of your posts does not have the word "repug?"

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, you are correct. Still, there is no question of right and wrong here. This was flat out illegal. For Obama to invoke executive privilege rather than get to the truth, I would think, should be an impeachable action.How many times did you think Bush should have been impeached for claiming executive privilege?

[ElNono]

Yes, you are correct. Still, there is no question of right and wrong here. This was flat out illegal. For Obama to invoke executive privilege rather than get to the truth, I would think, should be an impeachable action.

What was illegal about it, counselor?

[ElNono]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/22293813.jpg

:lol

[boutons_deux]

"For Obama to invoke executive privilege rather than get to the truth"

Since when does truth have ANYTHING to do with politics, (or with lawyers?) ? The guvmint and UCA are LYING to us EVERY time they open their mouths.

[TeyshaBlue]

How many times did you think Bush should have been impeached for claiming executive privilege?

Dunno. bout 40 times? :lol

[boutons_deux]

Will Fox Report On Fortune Bombshell That Fast And Furious Didn't Involve Gunwalking?

As right-wing media cheer on a partisan Republican effort to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt with regard to Congress' inquiry into the ATF's Operation Fast and Furious, Fortune magazine has released a stunning investigation which concludes that ATF "never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels" in that case.

The Fortune piece is based on a six-month investigation that included the review of "more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents" and interviews with "39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case." Its author, Katherine Eban, is an award-winning investigative reporter who writes for major national magazines and whose work has been featured on national broadcast news programs.

Operation Fast and Furious has long been presented by the politicians of both parties and by right-wing, traditional, and progressive media - including here at Media Matters - as a failed ATF operation in which agents were instructed to allow guns to be trafficked in order to build a complex case against a Mexican drug cartel. In that scenario, the guns were allowed to cross the border and were later recovered at crime scenes, including at the site of the murder of border patrol agent Brian Terry. Several members of Congress, including Oversight Committee chair Darrell Issa (R-CA), have followed the National Rifle Association and right-wing media in promoting a more sinister conspiracy theory: that the operation was conceived from the beginning to deliberately arm the cartels in order to promote a gun control agenda.

In contrast to both the conventional and conspiratorial narratives, Eban writes:

Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.

t was nearly impossible in Arizona to bring a case against a straw purchaser. The federal prosecutors there did not consider the purchase of a huge volume of guns, or their handoff to a third party, sufficient evidence to seize them. A buyer who certified that the guns were for himself, then handed them off minutes later, hadn't necessarily lied and was free to change his mind. Even if a suspect bought 10 guns that were recovered days later at a Mexican crime scene, this didn't mean the initial purchase had been illegal. To these prosecutors, the pattern proved little. Instead, agents needed to link specific evidence of intent to commit a crime to each gun they wanted to seize.

None of the ATF agents doubted that the Fast and Furious guns were being purchased to commit crimes in Mexico. But that was nearly impossible to prove to prosecutors' satisfaction. And agents could not seize guns or arrest suspects after being directed not to do so by a prosecutor. (Agents can be sued if they seize a weapon against prosecutors' advice. In this case, the agents had a particularly strong obligation to follow the prosecutors' direction given that Fast and Furious had received a special designation under the Justice Department's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. That designation meant more resources for the case, but it also provided that prosecutors take the lead role.)



http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206270010?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MediaMattersForAmerica-CountyFair+%28Media+Matters+for+America+-+County+Fair%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

[boutons_deux]

Stewart totally destroys Fox, again, but it's shooting fish in a barrel.

Jon Stewart Mocks Fox's Attempt To Pin The "Watergate" Label On President Obama

On The Daily Show, host Jon Stewart mocked Fox News' repeated attempts to attach the "Watergate" label to several of the right-wing media's manufactured attacks on President Obama.

After pointing out that the Fast & Furious operation is the latest story to be labeled as "Obama's Watergate" by Fox News, Stewart mocked the network for using the same rhetoric to attack Obama over intelligence leaks, Solyndra, and the BP oil spill.

Right-wing media has repeatedly attempted to pin the "Watergate" label to the Obama administration. In addition to the examples listed by Stewart, right-wing media have unsuccessfully tried to elevate Obama's immigration policy shift, the Joe Sestak "bribe" falsehood, and the "birther" campaign to the status of "Watergate."

see video:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206270009?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MediaMattersForAmerica-CountyFair+%28Media+Matters+for+America+-+County+Fair%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

[Yonivore]

Meanwhile, in other news, Holder is held in Contempt of Congress by a bi-partisan vote.

I hear the bus coming down the street...

[Th'Pusher]

Meanwhile, in other news, Holder is held in Contempt of Congress by a bi-partisan vote.

I hear the bus coming down the street...

17 Democrats just serving their special interest masters in the NRA. LOL at Yoni cheering on special interests influencing our elected officials.

[CosmicCowboy]

Will Fox Report On Fortune Bombshell That Fast And Furious Didn't Involve Gunwalking?

As right-wing media cheer on a partisan Republican effort to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt with regard to Congress' inquiry into the ATF's Operation Fast and Furious, Fortune magazine has released a stunning investigation which concludes that ATF "never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels" in that case.

The Fortune piece is based on a six-month investigation that included the review of "more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents" and interviews with "39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case." Its author, Katherine Eban, is an award-winning investigative reporter who writes for major national magazines and whose work has been featured on national broadcast news programs.

Operation Fast and Furious has long been presented by the politicians of both parties and by right-wing, traditional, and progressive media - including here at Media Matters - as a failed ATF operation in which agents were instructed to allow guns to be trafficked in order to build a complex case against a Mexican drug cartel. In that scenario, the guns were allowed to cross the border and were later recovered at crime scenes, including at the site of the murder of border patrol agent Brian Terry. Several members of Congress, including Oversight Committee chair Darrell Issa (R-CA), have followed the National Rifle Association and right-wing media in promoting a more sinister conspiracy theory: that the operation was conceived from the beginning to deliberately arm the cartels in order to promote a gun control agenda.

In contrast to both the conventional and conspiratorial narratives, Eban writes:

Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.

t was nearly impossible in Arizona to bring a case against a straw purchaser. The federal prosecutors there did not consider the purchase of a huge volume of guns, or their handoff to a third party, sufficient evidence to seize them. A buyer who certified that the guns were for himself, then handed them off minutes later, hadn't necessarily lied and was free to change his mind. Even if a suspect bought 10 guns that were recovered days later at a Mexican crime scene, this didn't mean the initial purchase had been illegal. To these prosecutors, the pattern proved little. Instead, agents needed to link specific evidence of intent to commit a crime to each gun they wanted to seize.

None of the ATF agents doubted that the Fast and Furious guns were being purchased to commit crimes in Mexico. But that was nearly impossible to prove to prosecutors' satisfaction. And agents could not seize guns or arrest suspects after being directed not to do so by a prosecutor. (Agents can be sued if they seize a weapon against prosecutors' advice. In this case, the agents had a particularly strong obligation to follow the prosecutors' direction given that Fast and Furious had received a special designation under the Justice Department's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. That designation meant more resources for the case, but it also provided that prosecutors take the lead role.)



http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206270010?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MediaMattersForAmerica-CountyFair+%28Media+Matters+for+America+-+County+Fair%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

And Federal prosecutors work for Holder. This is just one branch of the Justice Department blaming another branch of the Justice department for guns being intentionally walked across the border.

[ElNono]

Surprising two Republicans broke off party line and voted no...

[Yonivore]

Surprising two Republicans broke off party line and voted no...
Why?

[ElNono]

Why?

Because this vote is mostly free of political repercussions for them.

[Yonivore]

Because this vote is mostly free of political repercussions for them.
Maybe they simply disagree?

The Republican Tent is much bigger than the Democrat Tent. They have outliers all the time; just look at Ron Paul.

Fact remains, 238 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted to hold him in contempt. That's about as bi-partisan as anything has been in the past 3 and a half years.

[ElNono]

Fact remains, 238 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted to hold him in contempt. That's about as bi-partisan as anything has been in the past 3 and a half years.

Which really tells the sad state of Congress, tbh...

[Spurminator]

Maybe they simply disagree?

The Republican Tent is much bigger than the Democrat Tent. They have outliers all the time; just look at Ron Paul.

Fact remains, 238 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted to hold him in contempt. That's about as bi-partisan as anything has been in the past 3 and a half years.

2 Republicans breaking with the party is evidence of a "Bigger Tent" because, as we all know, 2 > 17.

[ElNono]

Justice Department won't prosecute Attorney General Holder for contempt of Congress (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-holder-not-to-be-prosecuted,0,3120769.story)

What do you think Yoni? Do you still hear the bus coming down the street? :lmao